The Dalton Co., Inc., (1954)
| Date | 10 September 1954 |
1228
DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to them
,
to the date
when Watson
was offered employment
on November
6, 1952,
and to the dates when Hodnett
and Ayres
are offered employment by Respondent,
less their net earnings
'
during such period
.
The back pay
shall be computed in the
manner established
by the Board
and Respondent upon request shall make available
to the Board
payroll
and other
records
to facilitate
the checking of the
amount due.'
The character
and scope of the unfair labor practices engaged in indicate an
intent to defeat self-organization of the employees
.
I shall
,
therefore,
recommend
that Respondent
cease and desist from in any manner interfering
with,
restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by the Act.'
Upon the basis of the
foregoing findings
of fact,
and upon the entire record in
,the case
,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
The activities
of Respondent
set forth
in section III, above
,
occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce
among the several States and
tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
2.
The Union
is
a labor organization
within the
meaning of Section
2 (5) of the
Act.
3.
By discriminating in regard
to the
hire and tenure
of employmentof the em-
ployees
listed
above in "The Remedy" section,
Respondent has engaged and is en-
gaging in
unfair labor
practices
within the
meaning
of Section
8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
4.
By interfering with,
restraining
,
and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, Respondent
has engaged and is engaging
in unfair
labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
5.
The aforesaid
unfair
labor practices
are unfair
labor practices
affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
4 Crossett Lumber Company
,
8
NLRB 440
5 F. TV
Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289.
6
May Department Stores v. N L. R B.,
THE DALTON
COM
PANY
,
INC.
and
RETAIL
C
LERKS' UNION
,
LOCAL No.
1691
OF THE RETAIL CLERKS INTE11NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
AFL.
Case
No. 15-CA-
611.
September
10, 1954
Decision and Order
On March 2, 1954, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto.
The Trial Examiner
also
found that
the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor
practices al-
leged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those
allegations.
Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed
exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by
the Trial Examiner
at .the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed.
109 NLRB No. 175.
.
THE DALTON
COMPANY, INC.
1229
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, to the extent and with
the modifications and additions indicated below.
1.
We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Re-
spondent engaged in independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
In doing so, however, we rely only on the following instances :
(a) Jackson's threat to Waggoner that "if the union comes in you will
lose your bonuses and hospitalization, . . . because the store would
cancel it"; (b) Jackson's statement to Waggoner that ". . . when it
came
down to a vote, the loyal employees would be taken care of";
(c) Jackson's statement to Blouin that Blouin would not have to join
the Union, because the store "would take care of those who didn't join";
and (d) Hardy's statement to Williams that "if we got the union, .. .
Mr. Boyd would get mad, . . . and lock all the doors and there would
be some 500 employees on the outside without a job."
We also find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Jackson's interroga-
tion of Waggoner and Blouin as to whether they were members of the
Union, and Hardy's interrogation of Williams regarding her opinion
of the Union, violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
We do not, how-
ever, adopt the Trial Examiner's discussion of the interrogation
per
se doctrine as applicable to this case.
We find instead that these inter-
rogations when viewed in the context in which they occurred, i. e., the
threats and promises of Jackson and Hardy, constituted interference
and coercion, and for that reason violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.'
The Respondent urges, in effect, that there can be no violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) in this case because the employees in question stated
that they were not intimidated. It is well settled that statements of
an employer need not have successfully intimidated or coerced an em-
ployee in order to constitute a violation of Section 8 (a) (1).2
2.
We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Re-
spondent discriminatorily discharged Maybelle Jolissaint in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
As described more fully in the Intermediate Report, Maybelle Jolis-
saint was employed by Respondent as a saleslady in its women's sports-
wear department, working from 1 p. m. to 5: 30 p. in., 6 days per week,
during the period from October 27, 1952, to April 4, 1953. On April
4, 1953, she was notified by Hardy, the Respondent's personnel man-
ager, that because of a decrease in business, she could no longer be
'Blue Flash Express
,
Inc.,
109 NLRB 591. Under
these circumstances
,
we do not
find merit in Respondent
'
s contention that no remedial order directed to these interroga-
tions should issue because of the alleged isolated nature of the instances involved.
We
do not, however
,
adopt the Trial Examiner
'
s
discussion concerning whether the Board
must issue a remedial
order in any
case in which a violation is found.
The Frohman Manu-
facturvng Co., Inc.,
107 NLRB 1308.
2
N. L. R. B
.
v. Illinois Tool Works
,
(C A. 7).
To continue reading
Request your trial